Is a Link to Weave or to Connect?

Cultural diffusion, human interaction. It’s common among all the 'themes' of world history that we have studied. From the initial, Environment Unit to our latest Law Unit, the idea of cultural diffusion has been stressed as an important contributor to history and advancement. I find it interesting that almost in all the events that we have taken a look at, I can find myself analyzing and trying to connect dots and looking for signs of diffusion. On and on and on, cultural diffusion is key to life since humans began to connect with one another. From what I have noticed, as time has moved on and passed, societies have grown closer together weaving in and out of each other, interacting, each time more and more than before. Society nowadays is basically based on human interaction. I don’t think anyone can deny the fact that if you look at history, the closeness of different people culturally and what not, has increased and people become aware of what goes on in far off places. I also don’t think one can deny that currently, with all the types of media we have now and transportation ways, humans have never been so in touch with another.

Taking into consideration this extreme necessity and dependency of history, advancement, and society as a whole on cultural diffusion, when we were introduced the upcoming project concerning events and themes and all that, I began to look at cultural diffusion as a possibility. But the issue with this is that the project asks for us to develop a 'fifth theme' that could potentially be added to the ninth grade history curriculum and while cultural diffusion can be found in most places, what might be troublesome could be separating it from the other themes. The issue I have is not of what could fit into Cultural Diffusion as a theme, but rather as to how to extract and separate cultural diffusion from the other themes. Maybe it is not possible because while it plays a part in all four themes that we have studied this year, maybe it is the link between all of them and considering the fact that we stress it so much already, it might be pushing my luck to try and stress it even more. Also, I find it difficult sometimes to separate cultural diffusion from mere human interaction. Human interaction could be as simple as sharing a pen, unless sharing a pen was something unique to one place and that pen was shared from a person belonging to that place and another person from elsewhere, it could not be considered cultural diffusion because it has no significant impact.

Cultural diffusion is a difficult term to deal with, dealing with it as a theme, might be even far more overwhelming. So could it actually have potential to be a fifth theme for this upcoming project or should I try to deal with it more as a connection between all themes and find another actual theme that fits right in with the others, connected by this very link of cultural diffusion.

The Way in Which it can be

think about how mosaic code features some of Hammurabi's code (cultural diffusion What Role does it play in the history of Law?)

The similarities between Hammurabi's Code and the Mosaic Code are just as much as the differences between these two. The purpose of these 'codes' was/ are mostly to provide order. Obviously, the way in which these 'codes' are used to provide order differentiate between both Hammurabi's Code and the Mosaic Code, but that is not what this post is about. 

The Way in Which it isn't

Think of differences:

Yesterday in class, we were told to compare and to contrast the Mosaic Code with Hammurabi's Code by making a Venn diagram with our assigned groups. I thought this activity was very useful and fun. In this activity, i cam to notice certain things that i would never have noticed if i had not had to compare and contrast the individual codes with each other. As is obviously well known by most, the Mosaic code was done by Moses, who was instructed by God. This makes the Mosaic Code a biblical text. This biblical text teaches lessons as does most of holy text tend to do. To me, this was possibly the most noticeable difference between the two. You see, the Mosaic Code and Hammurabi's Code are clearly both moral, maybe one more than the other, but to some level they both are. Now, the difference comes in in the way that these morals are further expressed. The Mosaic Code seats a list of values that must be followed. Hummarabi's Code is also a list of values that must be followed, but it is also a list of restrictions that must also be followed. Hammurabi's Code unlike the Mosaic Code sets what must be followed and then the possible punishement for failing to follow it. All in one, Hammurabi's Code is all about consequence while the Mosaic Code is more about teaching and putting out there what is to be viewed in what way, be it negatively or possitively. It offers more freedom for interpretation of punishment while Hammurabi's Code was basically set down in stone.

The naturality of Natural Rights

This week, we were asked the question "Do human rights exist? Are they real, or why did we decide to create them?" We were then all told to participate in a conversation as a whole class to talk about what we thought about this. At first, i thought we were talking about human rights as we know them now, as a set of  laws striving for justice and equal opportunity for all human beings. But that was not it. Instead, was i later came to understand was that it was not human rights themselves that we were being asked about but rather, about the idea of human rights, being rights we all deserved and simply had the 'right' to have just because we are people. This idea, as i think i mentioned in previous blog posts this week, is the idea of Natural Rights. As the title for this post hinted, i would like to speak of the possible naturality behind this idea of natural rights.

While the actual, literal idea of natural rights sounds to be an obvious phony, the idea behind it makes complete sense to me. Strangely, as the man in document 2 from a reading we had said, wanting is not enough, and i think the should is very similar to wanting, you think something should be because you want it to be so, so bad. So unlike i did in my first post for this week, i do not wish to speak about the answer to the question, but rather of what i think of the question and what i think about this idea of human rights being true natural rights

Silly if you go right

IN the textbook, there is a reading titled The evolution of Justice and Human Rights. the very first sentence of it shocked me. It made me laugh at how unresonable it is to me, but the reason that is, is because times have changed, and obviously, point of views have changed. I think the connection between Laws and peoples opinions and how closely related to one another they seem to me, is interesting. The connection between these two that i see is the way that they influence each other. Actually, that is something that confuses me. Is it that Laws are the once that influence what is seen as wrong or acceptable in society, or is it society that decides what things should become law? Technically, it can go either way.


A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month.
You may be arrested for vagrancy if you do not have at least one dollar bill on your person.
You can get out of paying for a dependent's medical care by praying for him/her.
Shotguns are required to be taken to church in the event of a Native American attack.
One may not bathe without wearing "suitable clothing," i.e., that which covers one's body from neck to knee.

Do Human Rights exist?

I think that the question of whether human rights exist is entirely different from whether they are real. In the documents given during class, various opinions were given.  These documents did not talk about if they existed, but rather, some referenced the idea they had that such a thing should exist, therefore we should make it be that way. Others, then spoke of the idea of human rights as being something that naturally occurred, something we all deserved and were entitled to from birth. And then there was the one that challenged that by saying that for one, it is complete and utter nonsense that we are 'born' with such a divine right to have 'human rights', and that the idea of such a thing occurring simply because we wanted it to is ridiculous because, as was the example given, hunger does not produce bread.
So to me, do human rights exist? Yes, of course they do, many laws exist granting us with what are considered to be universal 'human rights'. But I don’t think that all these human rights are looked at in the same way by all, much less accepted by all. So how does this universal human rights thing work?  I find it hard to understand how a set of rights can be universally agreed upon when such rights are made to maintain up to some level and to create equality, or at least some certain sense of equal opportunity and treatment, for all. There is no denying that different morals exist in different areas of the world, some things that are considered good in one place can be considered terribly bad in another place, so by setting a universal code for human rights, I think it kind of ignores such differences. Although, not the most basic ones, because I don’t think that there exist such a culture who’s beliefs are against the happiness of individuals. So Yes, I do think human rights exist, just not natural human rights. Yes, every human being should have the right to be happy, but it isn’t so, because if such a thing were actually true, if it were a natural right, we would not find ourselves throughout history, violating such a thing, and also fighting for it. It would just be, and that would be the end of it.

So the whole idea of natural human rights, it really does sound like a lot of nonsense, as one of the documents pointed out. I think we created them and that because we wanted them to be real so badly, we made it evolve into something we all think of as natural. Natural in the sense that it should just be, so it is, and no real reasoning is needed, just because we think it makes sense that way.

Apart from the Whole

Apartheid was a big issue in south africa, as mentioned in the previous post. It boldly gave power, and took it. It oppressed, the minority, and lifted the oppressor. In south africa's case, the minority was not literally the minority, they were just the powerless